JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession. The claim seems an unjust one devoid of merit. The pedigree of the family will be found at page 11. The property which is in dispute belonged to one Manogilal. The plaintiffs are very distant reversioners being some seven degrees removed. Manogilal died in the year 1858 leaving a widow Musammat Dakho and a daughter Musammat Raji Kumvar. Raji Kunwar had a son Adit Prasad who left a widow Musammat Pranpat Kunwar who died in the year 1911. The present suit was instituted on the 27tli of September 1912. Dakho Kunwar died in the year 1880. Her grandson, Adit Prasad, died also in 1880. It is not quite certain whether he died before or after his grandmother. Raji Kunwar died according to the plaintiffs in 1905. According to the defendants she died about 14 years before the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs' claim is that upon the death of Manogilal the estate vested in his widow Musammat Dakho for the ordinary estate of a Hindu widow, that on her death it vested on her daughter, Musammat Raji Kunwar, and that accordingly the plaintiffs, as reversioners, became entitled upon her death, which, as we have mentioned above, is alleged by the plaintiffs to have taken place in the year 1905. It is somewhat remarkable (even if we assume that this lady died in the year 1905) that the plaintiffs did not institute their suit until September 1912, which was about a year after the death of Musammat Pranpat, the widow of Adit Prasad, We find that prior to the year 1879 there had been disputes as to the succession to the property between the persons who would have been the apparent reversioners had the property descended in the way alleged by the plaintiffs and had Musammat Dakho been in possession as a Hindu widow. The persons who then disputed were the sons and grandsons of one Subhao Singh, the plaintiffs all claim in this line of descent. These persons seem to have attempted to make out that Manogilal was a member of a joint Hindu family with them at the time of his death. They apparently had failed in this attempt. A settlement, however, to avoid further litigation was arrived at between the then claimants and Musammat Dakho and Musammat Raji Kunwar acting on behalf of themselves and of Adit Prasad, who was then a minor. Under the terms of the settlement the then claimants, that is to say, the forefathers of the present plaintiffs, were put into immediate possession of a very substantial portion of the property and Adit Prasad was put in absolute proprietary possession of the property in dispute "from generation to generation." It is to claim this last mentioned property that the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs. We find that after this settlement mutation of names was effected in accordance with the settlement in favour of Adit Prasad and after his death in favour of his widow. The Court below has held that the widow of Manogilal accelerated the estate of Adit Prasad. It seems to us that having' regard to the terms of the settlement this result was highly probable. It is a fair presumption from the manner in which the entry of names was made, that the devolution of the estate was so accelerated. As a matter of fact Adit and after him Ins widow continued in possession; we have already pointed out that this suit was not instituted until after the death of the widow of Adit. We find that litigation ensued in the year 188-1 and the compromise, referred to above, was the subject of that litigation and came before the High Court in an appeal. The High Court held on the 27th of November 1888 that Adit Prasad acquired a full proprietary title in respect of the property dealt with by the agreement, if Adit Prasad did acquire proprietary possession, then the plaintiffs are not the reversioners to his estate. We agree with the finding of the Court below that Adit Prasad did acquire a full proprietary title in the property, and we entirely agree with the decision of the Court below and dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.